First-Time Use Books are Frequently Available for Patron-Driven Acquisition

• Main Author: Eamon C. Tewell
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: University of Alberta 2015-09-01
• Series: Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
• Online Access: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/eblip/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/24316

A Review of: Herrera, G. (2015). Testing the patron-driven model: Availability analysis of first-time use books. Collection Management, 40(1), 3-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2014.965863 Abstract Objective – To determine whether a hypothetical Patron-Driven Acquisition (PDA) purchasing model is acceptable in terms of making available print monographs after their initial publication. Design – Quantitative data analysis. Setting – A large public university located in the southern United States of America. Subjects – 8,020 item records representing books used at the author’s institution for the first time in 2012. Non-circulating monographs and items such as personal copy reserve materials and government documents were excluded from the sample. Methods – Using the libraries’ ILS, a listing of the titles of monographs that received first-time use in 2012 was generated and exported to Microsoft Excel. The Getting It System Toolkit (GIST) was used to batch-search possibilities for acquisition and/or access, including purchase (including Amazon and Better World Books) and free access (such as HaithiTrust and Google Books). Main Results – A total of 76% (6,130) of titles from the sample of 8,020 were available for purchase. A total of 3% (165) of these titles were both available for purchase and freely available online. Books not available either freely or by purchase represented 21% (1,682) of the sample. When participation in a regional resource-sharing consortium was accounted for, only 1% (101) of the titles could not be obtained. Books published before the 1920s were more likely to be freely available due to being in the public domain; however a majority of the titles (64%; 5,127) had a publication date of 1990 forward. The humanities represented the largest disciplinary grouping at 57% (4,563), with Social Sciences (31%; 2,472) and STEM (11%; 879) following. Conclusions – In sum, the results indicated a very low margin of unavailability for titles. The author notes that, based on the findings, there should be no PDA purchase restrictions according to publication date if a large-scale program were to be implemented at their institution, and that researchers requiring humanities titles would be likely to benefit most from such a program (p. 14). It should be noted that a significant budget for PDA was allocated at the author’s institution.